The case against Eleanor de Freitas : What the evidence actually shows.

Rape Allegations – January 2013

On 4th January 2013, Ms Eleanor de Freitas reported to the Metropolitan Police Service that I had raped her on the evening of 23rd December 2012. The police investigated her complaint and six weeks later on the 20th February 2013, they decided to take no further action and closed the case.

Private Prosecution 2013–2014

I asked the police to investigate Ms de Freitas for making a false rape accusation. They refused, notwithstanding that there was a substantial body of evidence showing the allegation had been fabricated.

It is important to distinguish between investigating and prosecuting. At that stage I was not seeking a prosecution. I was asking only that the police investigate, that they gather evidence, and that they put to Ms de Freitas the contradictions between her account and the material my legal team had collected. The police declined even to take that step.

In the meantime, Ms de Freitas had, for a period of two months, been telling people in my community that I had raped her, and there was no end in sight. This was not simply a confidential complaint to the police. It was a very public accusation, and it was causing me serious damage. When the police refused to investigate, I took the decision to bring my own legal case in order to establish my innocence. This was not a defamation claim but a private prosecution.

I instructed the law firm Edmonds Marshall McMahon, specialists in private prosecutions. We assembled evidence and filed proceedings in court. That evidence included the following:

1. Text messages sent by Ms de Freitas to a mutual friend on the morning of 24th December 2012 at around 9:20am, only a few hours after she claimed she was raped. These were sent from my flat, and during our date, (the alleged crime scene), in which she wrote that we had “huge fun” together – in other words, a reference to events only hours earlier.

2. CCTV footage of Ms de Freitas and me shopping for sex toys in a shop called Ann Summers at around 11:30am on 24th December 2012, again only a few hours after she claimed she had been raped. The footage, in full colour and running for approximately 21 minutes, first shows Ms de Freitas entering the shop alone while I wait outside smoking. At about 3 minutes in, she can be seen purchasing battery-operated sex toys with me. At about the 10-minute mark, we are shown kissing at the back of the shop. By the 21-minute mark, Ms de Freitas is signing up for the Ann Summers loyalty programme, in no hurry and evidently enjoying the shopping trip.

3. A witness statement from Ms de Freitas’ work colleague, who said that Eleanor told her she had an 'amazing time with an amazing guy' at around 3pm 24th December 2012. This was significant because Eleanor had alleged that she was raped on the evening of 23rd December 2012 and had stayed overnight. The very next day, on 24th December, we parted company around lunchtime, and the first friend she spoke to (in person) about our evening together, was her colleague, to whom she said she had an amazing time with me.

4. Text messages sent by Ms de Freitas to another friend on 25th December 2012 (24hrs after our date ended), in which she said that we had a "brief fling", that I was “full of adoration” but that I then rejected her, complaining I had "defriended" her on Facebook.

For context: Eleanor and I went on a date on 23rd December 2012. She stayed overnight, on the 24th December she told fiends what a great time she had had with me. We went shopping to Ann Summers, and parted company at lunchtime. A few hours later, at 7pm, I discovered she was an escort. I was horrified and told her I did not want to see her again.  

It was after this sudden rejection, at 7pm on 24th December 2012, that she became upset and began fabricating stories about me — first to friends, and later to the police. At first she said I had 'upset her', then she said I had 'abused her' and finally this snowballed into a rape allegation.

I believe her motive for lying, was mixed. Partly to 'save face' to family and friends, i.e. making up a story as to why she was upset that evening. And partly as an act of revenge, because I rejected her.

While it might seem unusual for me to end contact so abruptly after our first date, it was equally unusual, and shocking, for me to discover that Eleanor was a sex worker, which explains the suddenness of my decision.

5. An email from Ms de Freitas on 3rd January 2013 saying, “sorry for the trouble I have caused you” – referring to the allegations she had made to friends in the previous 10 days. Although after I rejected her a second time, she then went to the police the next day - 4th January.

6. The private prosecution case contained far more evidence than this, including around 360 pages of exhibits and a further 78 pages of witness statements. The index can be viewed here (witness names redacted). It is worth mentioning that Eleanor presented no evidence in her defence. None from her family, friends, or any other source.

7. Even Detective Inspector Julian King, one of the investigating officers, provided evidence and a witness statement supporting the private prosecution. His statement set out his ‘rationale to take no further action’, explaining the reasons why the Metropolitan Police Service had dropped the case against me.

Crown Prosecution Service takes over the case 2013-2014 and decides to continue prosecution of Ms de Freitas.

On September 11th 2013, at her first court appearance (the committal hearing), Eleanor’s lawyers told the court that she suffered from bipolar disorder. On 16th September 2013, my lawyers wrote to Mr de Freitas’ lawyers requesting any supporting medical records, stating:

“If your client is suffering from any significant mental or physical ill health, we would of course need to take this information into account when considering the public interest stage for any ongoing review of the matter”.

In other words, we were careful to follow proper procedures and to take all circumstances into account right from the start. Her lawyers, however, did not reply to the letter and provided no further information. Instead, they asked the Crown Prosecution Service to take over the case and stop the prosecution, claiming it was unfounded.

On 8th October 2013, the Crown Prosecution Service (having received Ms de Freitas’ request to stop the case) wrote to both her lawyers and mine, stating:

“Our CPS policies require such a case to be handled by a prosector with the appropriate levels of skill and expertise in light of complex and sensitive issues that arise. Furthermore any decision must be approved by a Chief Crown Prosector or Deputy and ratified by out Special Crime Division” 

In other words, the CPS ensured that this case would be examined at the highest level, to make certain that all proper procedures were followed, prior to making any decision whether to allow the prosecution to continue or not.

On 27th November 2013, the CPS asked the court for a further adjournment of the case in order to continue reviewing the papers, which included a lengthy psychiatric report. They stated that any decision would need to be ratified by Alison Levitt, Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions. 

It is also worth noting that Alison Levitt was the UK’s leading expert on false rape allegations at the time, having published a report (the same year) that analysed 121 suspects of false rape allegations, of which 35 were prosecuted.

On 5th December 2013, the CPS confirmed that both the evidential and public interest tests had been met, and that they would proceed with the prosecution of Ms de Freitas for Perverting the Course of Justice. 

On January 24th 2014, at a plea and case management hearing, Ms de Freitas pled ‘not guilty’, and a trial was set for April 7th 2014.

In March 2014, Ms de Freitas’ lawyers approached the CPS to ask if they would accept a guilty plea to the lesser offence of ‘Wasting police time’. The plea bargain was not accepted, and the CPS continued with the original charge.

This was later confirmed to me by Simon Spence KC, the CPS prosecutor at the time, in an email from May 2024. See it here.

On 4th April 2014, Ms de Freitas tragically took her own life.

Inquest in Ms de Freitas death and subsequent Judicial Review Proceedings 2014-2016

In November 2014, an inquest was scheduled into Ms de Freitas’ death. The case attracted significant publicity, led by her father, David de Freitas, who claimed there was “no evidence” that his daughter had lied, was wrongly prosecuted and “hounded to death”.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, who oversees all prosecutions in England and Wales, issued a public statement in December 2014 to address the media speculation, which stated:

“…However, the evidence in this case was strong and having considered it in light of all of our knowledge and guidance on prosecuting sexual offences and allegedly false rape claims, it is clear there was sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction for perverting the course of justice. This was evidence including text messages and CCTV footage that directly contradicted the account Ms de Freitas gave to the police. This was not assumption based on her behaviour or actions which fall into myths and stereotypes about how alleged rape victims should behave. It was on this basis that we concluded that there was a realistic prospect of proving that the rape allegation made by Ms de Freitas was false, and there was also a strong public interest in prosecuting due to the seriousness of the alleged offence which was maintained by the defendant for some time and which led to the arrest of an individual.

…

I am satisfied that prosecutors had taken the necessary steps in assuring themselves that Ms de Freitas’ mental health had been properly considered. This was in the form of a very detailed report by a consultant forensic psychiatrist instructed by Ms de Freitas’ legal team, who also took into account the views of Ms de Freitas’ consultant psychiatrist. That medical assessment was clear. The doctor instructed by Ms de Freitas’ legal representative recommended that she was aware of the implications of making a false allegation, as she was alleged to have done, and was fit to stand trial. We do not take on these kinds of prosecutions lightly, but the medical evidence provided to us could not justify dropping such a serious case. No further representations were made to us as to Ms de Freitas’ health, which would of course have been carefully considered.

There has been speculation that the police did not agree with the prosecution for various reasons. However, the police never undertook an investigation into the alleged perverting the course of justice nor did they consider all the material provided to us by the private prosecution. They were therefore not in a position to form a view on whether there was sufficient evidence to prosecute.…”

The inquest was adjourned to 17th March 2015. At that hearing, the coroner explained that his role was to ascertain:

1. Who died

2. Where and when they died

3. How they came to their death

The coroner confirmed that Ms de Freitas had died on 4th April 2014, at her home in Fulham, and that the medical cause of death was hanging. Further stating that he was satisfied that Ms de Freitas took her own life. He then brought the inquiry to its conclusion.

Ms de Freitas’ father was not satisfied. He wanted the coroner to go behind the rape allegations and make a finding against the CPS or myself, to show that there had been wrongdoing on our part. He then brought judicial review proceedings in the High Court against the coroner.

On 15th July 2015, the coroner filed his defence to the judicial review proceedings, setting out his reasons. In paragraph 23 of his defence, he referred to a letter he had received from the Director of Public Prosecutions, which stated:

“As regards to the evidential stage, there were some 10 pieces of evidence which supported the prosecution case either (a) in that they contradicted Ms de Freitas account of the assault or (b) in that they amounted to apologies by her for making the allegations. As regards the public interest stage, protectors had reviewed a very full assessment of her fitness to stand trial, which suggested that she was fit.” 

The Coroner also remarked at paragraph 39 (d):

“The Claimant [David de Freitas] argues that the Coroner was obliged to investigate the prosecution because of the impending trial was a stressor which may have influenced Ms de Freitas decision to kill herself. However, it cannot be right to say that, in nay suicide case, the coroner must investigate in detail any and all events which may have distressed the deceased person and influenced his/her decision. Was it, for example, incumbent on the Coroner in this case to investigate in detail relationship issues within the de Freitas family, since they were recorded as having n affect on Ms de Freitas mental condition (e.g. in Dr Benches records of 31st December 2012, 24th September 2013, 14 October 2013 and 27th March 2014)?” 

In paragraph 43, the Coroner again stated that:

“A psychiatrist (instructed by her own legal team) had assessed her as fit to stand trial in the first place. Treating clinicians who saw her regularly regarded her as displaying only mild depressing symptoms in the period shortly before she died. In other words, she did not foreseeably present such a serious risk that the only lawful option was to discontinue the prosecution”. 

This was then later reinforced in paragraph 44 (b)

“At no time after that did any of her treating clinicians say that she was unfit to stand trial, or at the immediate risk of suicide. 

…

Ms de Freitas was being seen regularly by a psychiatrist who knew her well and who, in his last appointments with her, recorded that she was fi to stand trial and had only minor symptoms”. 

On 9th March 2016, Mr Justice Holroyde, sitting in the High Court, after reviewing all of the papers, denied the application for judicial review. In his reasons, he stated at paragraph 5:

“…The CPS here had medical evidence, including that which was relied on by those representing the deceased {the de Freitas family], which did not identify any real of immediate risk to her life. No representations were made to the CPS, in the days immediately proceeding her death, to the effect that her condition was worsening and that the prosecution was endangering life”.

In other words. The CPS were not provided with any medical evidence that Ms de Freitas conditioning was worsening (after having been given a report from a psychiatrist that she was fit to stand trial). They were also not a party to her confidential medical records. But even if they were able to (somehow) compel a criminal defendant to release their medical records against their own will, then even those confidential medical records showed that she was deemed fit to stand trial on the 27th March 2014 by her own consultant psychiatrist Dr Bench, just a week prior to her death, and that no other records existed to the contrary.

Attorney General makes a public statement on the Eleanor de Freitas case in June 2018

Mr de Freitas did not accept the High Court’s decision and took the case to the Attorney General.

It is worth noting that, up to this point, the prosecution case against Ms de Freitas had been reviewed by the following:

1. Sarah Maclaren, Head of the Rape and Serious Sexual Offence (RASSO) unit at the Crown Prosecution Service

2. Jenny Hopkins, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor for London

3. Alison Levitt, Chief Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions, with extensive experience in false rape allegations

4. Alison Saunders, Director of Public Prosecutions

5. Judge Deborah Taylor, who oversaw the prosecution of Ms de Freitas in the Crown Court

6. HM Coroner, Mr Chinyere Inyama, during the inquest proceedings

7. Mr Justice Holroyde, sitting at the High Court during the judicial review proceedings

These were all highly qualified and experienced professionals, the majority of whom were senior women in the CPS, which indicates that gender bias did not influence the decision-making process.

All of these people found no wrongdoing by me or the CPS, after examining every scrap of paper in the case.

And then on the 26th June 2018, the Attorney General made a public statement, saying:

“I recognise that this was a difficult case with a tragic outcome and I extend my deepest sympathies to Mr De Freitas and his family. However, I have carefully considered the concerns raised by Mr De Freitas and I am satisfied that this case has already been subject to extensive scrutiny within the CPS, and that it was right for the prosecution to go ahead”. 

See that statement here.

Police pay me £10,000 for their misconduct, and DI Julian King leaves the force.

In 2018 I took legal action against the Metropolitan Police Service alleging that they had wrongly refused to investigate Ms de Freitas for perverting the course of justice.

The police paid me £10,000 in compensation by way of settlement before trial. Detective Inspector  Julian King, subsequently left the police force after allegations of misconduct against him were found to be “proven”, due to refusing to investigate Ms de Freitas for perverting the course of justice and because of various emails he had sent to David de Freitas making a series of unjustified statements.

Overall Conclusions

It is right to acknowledge that Ms de Freitas was a tragic victim of suicide, the product of serious mental health conditions. But she was not a victim of rape. Nor is it correct to suggest that the prosecution was responsible for driving her to her death.

The coroner, in his own submissions, commented that after reviewing all of her medical records it was evident that family issues were causing her significant mental health problems right up to a week before her death. He referred specifically to the records of Dr Bench dated 27th March 2014 (she died 4th April) [para.39(d)].

Yet for the past decade her father, together with self-proclaimed feminists Harriet Wistrich and Lisa Avalos, has sought to misrepresent the facts. They persist in portraying me as a rapist in public forums, under the mistaken belief that justice for Eleanor requires attributing blame to me.

This raises the central question. What more, in truth, could any defendant ever produce to establish his innocence? In the ordinary course of such cases there is very little by way of corroboration. One person’s word is set against another’s. Yet here the position is wholly different.

We are dealing with CCTV footage of her with me, shopping for sex toys, only hours after the supposed assault (she had told police she was crying, waterboarded, frozen with fear, and described how she even had to fight back).

We are not dealing with vague or ambiguous text messages. We are dealing with specific messages, sent from my flat the very next morning (that is, from the alleged crime scene), in which she wrote that we had “huge fun” together — a reference to the past, during the very period when she claimed she was raped.

And when she later spoke to friends, she did not say that she had been raped. She said that she had been rejected. And this is why she was upset, making is very clear in her text messages.

Crucially, before even complaining of rejection, she told the first friend she saw that she had an “amazing time with an amazing guy”, a statement recorded in testimony in this case.

In any comparable matter this would be regarded as overwhelming. Independent CCTV evidence. Contemporaneous text messages. Witness statements. An email of apology from the complainant herself. This is the sort of material that any defendant, facing such a grave allegation, could only dream of having.

Yet despite all this, David de Freitas and his fellow activists, continue to publicly assert that Ms de Freitas was raped, even a decade later in 2025. They do so, it seems, on the extraordinary proposition that unless there exists video footage of the sexual activity itself, accompanied by the complainant audibly declaring her consent at regular intervals, then no other evidence will ever suffice.

And so the question must be asked. How much evidence is required before innocence is accepted? At what point does the scale finally tip? If CCTV footage, contemporaneous messages, apologies, and direct witness statements are not enough, then what would ever be enough?

CCTV at Ann Summers 11:30am 24th December 2012

Did Eleanor intentionally lie to the police? Here's what she told them.

There has been speculation in the media that Eleanor "wasn't sure" if she had been raped, and that she made a report in good faith, in the "genuine belief" that she might have been raped but couldn't remember anything because she was "drugged".

Let me dispell this myth...

Here is an extract from an email she sent to police, in which Eleanor was adamant she has been raped. And says she was locked in my flat until midday.

Here is another email she sent, saying that she was held "captive" and then developed Stockholm syndrome. For context, these emails were sent by Eleanor, months after her initial complaint to the police

And here is an extract from her Police  Interview (ABE) on 4th January 2013, which clearly demonstrates the level of detail she was prepared to go into when making up her story.

The contrast between Eleanor's allegations and the prosecution's evidence is undeniable and compelling. 

She claimed she was violently attacked, crying, fighting back, and held captive until midday. Yet, how do we reconcile those claims with the text messages she sent from my flat, saying she had "huge fun" with me? How do we explain her telling a colleague—just minutes after leaving my company—that she had "an amazing time with an amazing guy"? The reason is simple: there was no rape, no violent attack, no waterboarding, and no kidnapping.

Eleanor's false allegations were consistent, numerous and ongoing. It was plainly a false allegation, and she intended to mislead the police. This was not a one off, or an accidental allegation, it was a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice. This was a very serious accusation which could have landed me in jail, with a false rape conviction, had I not had evidence to refute her claims.

It’s critical to highlight that David de Freitas and his associates—Harriet Wistrich and Lisa Avalos—are fully aware of these facts. They have access to all the case documents. 

Despite this, they continue to push a narrative that Eleanor "couldn’t remember" and "wasn’t sure" what happened because she was drugged and wasn't able to consent.  This is demonstrably false, and they know it. 

But distorting the facts serves their agenda. By making the case appear more credible, they can continue to persuade others—people who haven’t seen the evidence—to join their campaign of misinformation and keep fuelling their momentum.

A week before trial, Eleanor's own lawyers pushed for a Guilty Plea.

In March 2014, about a week before Eleanor’s trial (and shortly before her death), her lawyers approached the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to ask whether she could plead guilty to the lesser offence of Wasting Police Time instead of facing the more serious charge of Perverting the Course of Justice.

This detail is important. A request to plead guilty (even to a lesser charge) is inconsistent with innocence. It is unclear whether this proposal came directly from Eleanor herself or whether her lawyers were simply testing the waters with the CPS. But if it was the latter, it strongly suggests that even her own legal team did not believe her story.

I have known this fact for some years. I even passed the information to David de Freitas’ lawyer, Harriet Wistrich. Yet rather than acknowledging it, she publicly accused me of lying.

At the time, I did not have any written proof of the 'plea deal', however, this has now changed.

In May 2024, ten years later, I contacted the barrister who had represented the CPS in Eleanor’s case (regarding a separate issue involving the misuse of trial documents). 

During our email exchange, he confirmed in writing that Eleanor’s lawyer had indeed asked if the CPS would accept a guilty plea to Wasting Police Time. The CPS refused the offer, and the case proceeded on the original charge of Perverting the Course of Justice.

Click here to see the email.

My nightmare 7-year ordeal with false accusers Eleanor & David de Freitas, in one easy to read blog post.

In October 2012 I started to become friends with Eleanor de Freitas. I had known her cousin Lizzie Noel for years. We began to chat daily on Facebook messenger and by December 2012 we had exchanged over 500 messages. In all that time she appeared to be a completely normal and fun person, there was nothing out of the ordinary. She was intelligent and previously a straight 'A' student. She was assertive, independent and confident.

On December 22nd 2012 she sent me text messages insisting that we meet for a "massage session" even though I was apprehensive. She told me to "change my sheets" and that we would have "croissants in bed together" the next day.

The next day she came round to my flat and we had some lunch and I accompanied her whilst she did her Christmas shopping. We came back later that afternoon to my flat where we chatted for hours and hours. She called her father and told him where she was (as she was living with her parents at the time). We later had consensual sex that evening and she stayed the night. We were not drunk, we had one small (300ml) bottle of cider each. Not even enough to be over the drink drive limit.

We woke up and had some breakfast, we were getting on amazingly well. She was only meant to come over for lunch (the day before) but now we had been together for almost 24hrs. We were playing music and she was dancing around my living room. (I later learned she messaged a mutual friend that morning and told him she had "huge fun" with me). At 1130am we went shopping to Ann Summers, a shop which sells sex toys. We joked about getting a vibrating egg and during the shopping trip she bought no less than £340 of sex aids whilst I watched.

The excessive shopping trip caused me some concern and also the night before she told me she had depression (even though she seemed the exact opposite to me). I also started to have my suspicions she might be an escort. At around 6pm I did some internet searches, and found her on adult websites promoting her services. It was all a bit to much for me, I was quite shocked.

She called me up around 7pm after having sent me some very strange text messages. This conversation happened only minutes after I found out she was an escort. I decided to end things there and then during hat call. I felt manipulated, and told her not to contact me.

I did not realise that this sudden rejection, after a night of passion, would set her off on a spiral of revenge. And so the "snow ball effect" began. First she began to tell people that I "upset her", and slowly, slowly, the lies snowballed into more serious allegations, and eventually a rape allegation.

Later that evening I saw some bizarre Facebook posts. On 26th December her cousin sent me messages accusing me of having done something awful to Eleanor. On 29th December her mother called me to ask what had happened? I answered all her questions but stopped short of saying her daughter was a call girl.

Friends began to avoid me and rumours started to circulate. On 3rd January 2013 I was told by a friend that Eleanor was going round telling people I had raped her, tortured her and didn't let her escape from my flat. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

On 4th January I wrote to Eleanor and told her to stop spreading lies or I would report her for harassment. I also called her father to explain the situation (since his wife had contacted me days earlier) although there was no answer so I left a voicemail.

That evening I went to the police station to report Eleanor for harassment. But instead of taking the report the police told me that Eleanor had been to the police station an hour before I had arrived and alleged I raped her. I was arrested and taken into custody.

During my police interview it was alleged that I waterboarded and tortured Eleanor, as well as raping her. It was absurd. However at this stage I no evidence to prove my innocence so it was actually very scary. I did not sleep for weeks, smoked like a chimney and lost a lot of weight.

By the end of February 2013 Ann Summers had given me a copy of the CCTV that showed Eleanor and I shopping for £340 of sex toys the morning after the alleged rape. Not only that but friends provided text messages that showed she told them she had "huge fun together" and that she complained about me rejecting her. 

The police dropped the case, please see their reasons here: https://www.economou.legal/2013/02/nfa-no-further-action.html

But they weren't interested in prosecuting Eleanor for lying. They just shrugged their shoulders as if it was nothing and said "these things happen".

Unfortunately Eleanor continued to go round and tell people for months and months that she had been raped. My life continued to be a nightmare. I had people contacting me telling me about all these things she was saying about me. Rape allegations never go away. Especially if you are arrested. "That's the guy who was arrested for rape," people will always say.

Was I going to live with these ongoing accusations? No way.

I decided the only way to clear my name was to prosecute Eleanor myself, through a private prosecution. 

I hired a team of  specialist lawyers and in  August 2013 we took the CCTV and text message evidence, as well as other evidence and placed this evidence into court. Eleanor was issued with a summons. 

This is when things got even weirder. Instead of getting his daughter a lawyer David de Freitas wrote to the police to try to have me arrested for "harassment"…. He was complaining about my court case being “harassment”, even though it was quite literally my lawyers asking a court to consider evidence. 

I wanted a judge and a jury to see the evidence, which would lead to a verdict in my favour, so that I could prove my innocence, and get on with my life. But according to her father, that process was "harassment". Although in reality, it was me who was being harassed, for months on end, with the false accusations. 

Eleanor appeared in Westminster Magistrates Court in September 2013, charged with perverting the course of justice, it was just a first hearing.  Eleanor's lawyers then wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and asked them to take over my court case and stop it.

In the meantime Eleanor’s lawyers sent us a psychiatric report which said she was fit to stand trial. (It was a damning report and probably sent by her lawyers in error). In the report Eleanor complained extensively about her father and family life as having an impact on her mental health. There was no mention of me having an impact her mental health. It was mostly negative comments about her father. 

 

In December 2013 the CPS, wrote to the parties, saying they would take over and continue with the prosecution themselves. They found it was both in the public interest to prosecute Eleanor (for lying) and the case passed the "evidential stage". In other words, there was enough evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. 

The decision to prosecute Eleanor was not taken lightly. The evidence was examined and ratified by the following high ranking officials: The Chief Crown Prosecutor for London; Head of the Rape Serious Sexual Assault Unit (RASSO), and the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor. All of these highly experienced prosecutors came to the conclusion that Eleanor must be taken to court, and that I was a victim of a false allegation of rape.

In January 2014 at a plea and case management hearing Eleanor kept up the lies and pleaded not guilty. The trial was all set for 7th of April. 

 

On the 4th of April my lawyer called me to her office. It was a Friday and the case was just three days away. I went up to my lawyers office, she told me to sit down and that's when she told me the news... 'Eleanor has killed herself'. I was shocked and of course I felt sorry for her parents, how could one not be.

 

I also was concerned about some form of retribution by her family. I was right. Within a month Eleanor’s mother Miranda de Freitas starting sending threatening messages to witnesses in the prosecution. Eventually she was reported for harassment and the police visited her to tell her to stop.

Seven months later on November 6th 2014 the story hit the press. Eleanor’s father David de Freitas had gone to pretty much every feminist organization, every newspaper and TV broadcaster saying his daughter was wrongly prosecuted and that there was no evidence that she had lied. He also gave my name to the press. Within 24hrs my name was all over the internet.

I contacted his lawyers to tell them there was CCTV and text message evidence to show his daughter had lied about the rape allegation, in the hope he would realise his error and stop spreading lies. I thought he has made a mistake and hadn't seen the evidence. Instead of listening his lawyers reported me to police for “harassment” and continued their false campaign.

Not only was my name in the papers as a supposed rapist, which was all false, I was now back in the police station being interviewed for this latest harassment complaint. It was truly awful to have to be in that situation. I was being falsely accused again and again.

Most newspapers refused to delete inaccuracies and refused to mention the CCTV and text message evidence and my family received death threats. They were all siding with the feminists. So I went to the Mail On Sunday and I told my story and also set up a website publishing the CCTV and other evidence.

David de Freitas went back to the police and reported me for harassment again. Saying it was upsetting to see his daughter on CCTV shopping for sex toys and portrayed as a prostitute. But then why the did he bring this into the public domain then if he did not the actual truth published?

In December 2014 the Director of Public Prosections made a public statement confirming there was evidence which contradicted the account Eleanor de Freitas gave to police. But within minutes of this being published David de Freitas went to the press saying this was not true. 

 

I had had enough and instructed lawyers to start legal action against Mr de Freitas for libel. This was a man who only wanted to fight and not stop his lies. He had libeled me for 6 weeks and there was a limit. Before then I was open to the fact that he might be given some slack but he had now gone too far. All I wanted was peace in my life and to be left alone.

By August 2015 his lawyers had said in writing that he would continue going to the press and that he could repeat his allegations when he wanted. What to do? Let him accuse me of rape again and again? Or put a stop to it? Somehow he had managed to pursued every feminist charity in the UK that his daughter was innocent and I was guilty, this was me against an entire feminist army that would seek to destroy my reputation for the rest of my life. Things on the internet don't disappear. Every person I would ever meet would look me up (e.g. to find me on LinkedIn) and then they would see all this awful nonsense. It was important to clear my name in court.

The libel case was scheduled for June 2016. In the meantime David de Freitas, his lawyers and his feminist charities had written dozens of letters to the Police and CPS asking me to be charged with harassment. Eventually the authorities gave in to his demands and charged me with harassment, even thought I had not had contact since telling his lawyers to stop talking to the press almost eighteen months before. Because the case was in the public eye the authorities were acting under pressure from his feminists groups and had to be seen as not being soft, so they went ahead and prosecuted me.

I was put on trial in June 2016 for harassment and the judge found me not guilty. Judge Tan Ikram even said I was a man wrongly accused. I was relieved someone understood what was going on.

Two weeks later we had the libel case and the result quickly followed six weeks later. In his judgement My Justice Warby agreed that David de Freitas caused serious harm to my reputation and that the rape allegations made by Mr de Freitas were not true. But in a bizarre twist he said that David de Freitas free speech rights were more important than my reputation (also known as the Public interest Defence - Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013). In other words he said it was more important de Freitas should be able to speak about his dead daughter even if what he was saying wasn’t true. And on that basis I lost the case and was ordered to pay David de Freitas legal bill, starting with a payment of £400,000. And was just the first instalment! The full amount I was being asked to pay (at that time) was around £1.5m.

I couldn’t believe it. So here’s what has just happened. I was falsely accused of rape in the press for a six week period, (with the websites quoting David de Freitas defamatory statements to the world for two years). He knew there is CCTV and text messages that proved I was innocent but lied to the press regardless to fit his story. That's what we found out at trial. I asked him to stop at the time of his press campaign, by writing to his lawyers, and he continued. And not only does he get away with it I am ordered to pay all his legal bill. What justice is that? The name of that judge is Sir Mark Warby and he knows he got it wrong. He clearly felt sorry for de Freitas and made him win on a technicality.

So of course I decided to appeal. If I didn’t appeal then I would be bankrupted. So I went to the court of appeal. In December 2016 the court of appeal agreed the judgement was potentially wrong and agreed to hear the case in full. In the meantime just as expected David de Freitas issued bankruptcy proceedings against me, which were stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

The appeal took ages though, two more years in fact. David de Freitas kept making applications to the court to have me bankrupted (unsuccessfully) and by the time we arrived in the Court of Appeal it was April 2018 - over five years since I was falsely accused of rape. I was exhausted by the court process.

Out of the blue in June 2018 the Attorney General made a public statement confirming again that it was correct to prosecute Eleanor de Freitas for making her rape allegations. It doesn't say I am innocent, but it implies there was a good reason to take her to court for lying.

In November 2018 we got the result of the appeal…. Unfortunately the court of appeal made the same decision as the original judge (Section 4 Defence). Freedom of speech wins over reputation they say. The judgement however does have a couple of pages dedicated to the CCTV and text message evidence which shows I am innocent [see paragraph 45 and 61]. Any lawyer will read the fine detail and see that I am innocent, but the general public are not going to read an entire judgement. To them losing a libel case means something else. However the section 4 defence in no way implies I am guilty, all it means is de Freitas gets a special immunity in the face of his false allegations, but it does mean I am going to have to pay for de Freitas £2m legal bill, and face bankruptcy.

 

[NB The judgement mentions de Freitas did not name me during the press interviews. This is a legal technicality. He actually provided my name to the press in the form of documents, which was a sneaky way for him to get away with naming me, without it being in a press statement, and of course the press published my name].

 

On January 7th 2019 David de Freitas took me to the High Court and  bankrupted me on the back of his demand for £2m. I didn't have £2m so the court bankrupted me. I was a bankrupt for a year, until 7th January 2020.  

 

And that's my story. I was falsely accused in public for years on end, my case throw out of court even though I am innocent and then bankrupted by my accuser. 

One small victory though was that I did take the Metropolitan Police to court, myself and with no help from lawyers, for police misconduct during the "rape" investigation (for refusing to prosecute Eleanor or look at my cctv and text message evidence) and won £10,000. Unfortunately the press were not interested in reporting this. 

 
The real shame about this case is that it's individuals like Eleanor de Freitas that cause real rape victims problems because when the real rapists are taken to trial the jury will think: "I wonder if she's not a vengeful liar like Eleanor". Real rape victims are now suffering because of her false allegations.

Mr de Freitas is equally guilty of spreading harmful misinformation around. He has told the world in his press campaign (and continues to do so) that Eleanor was prosecuted on the back of "no evidence" which will make real rape victims scared of coming forward thinking they could be prosecuted if their story is inconsistent.  It is very important that people know there was a mountain of evidence against Eleanor and even two of her own doctors said she was fit to stand trial. It was a rare thing to have such a prosecution, because of the amount of evidence.

Some important facts:

• Eleanor made her first false rape complaint against another man in 2012, I was her second victim.
• She falsely accused her own parents of poisoning and imprisoning her, also in 2012, this is even admitted by her father... who argues it shows she was 'vulnerable' and should never have been put on trial.
  
• The case was only ever made public when David de Freitas went to the press in November 2014, and put his daughters (and my) name out there all over the internet.
  
• David de Freitas knew about the cctv and text message evidence before he went to the press, but mislead the public to fit his story, and claimed there was 'no evidence'.

If anyone reading this wants more details please don’t hesitate to contact me although you can read the story in full and see more details by clicking on "archive" and links on the right hand side (on a PC in full web browser). 

Royal Court of Justice, London

Useful links in the Eleanor de Freitas case.

Statement of Director of Public Prosecutions: https://blog.cps.gov.uk/2014/12/statement-from-the-director-of-public-prosecutions-on-eleanor-de-freitas.html

Statement of Attorney General: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/no-independent-inquiry-into-the-prosecution-of-eleanor-de-freitas

High Court: No failings on Eleanor de Freitas case. https://alexander-economou.docdroid.com/F59eyl5/2016331-permission-for-a-jr-refused-pdf#page=3

Police reasons for "no further action" for rape compliant: https://www.economou.legal/2013/02/nfa-no-further-action.html

Police pay me £10,000 in compensation https://www.economou.legal/2018/08/metropolitan-police-pay-compensation.html

CCTV Evidence (Eleanor de Freitas buys sex toys with me day AFTER alleged attack): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egkxKabRkKknjU

Text message evidence: https://www.economou.legal/2017/09/text-message-evidence.html

Text message evidence 2: https://www.economou.legal/2013/01/more-text-message-evidence.html

Psychiatric Report of Eleanor de Freitas: https://www.docdroid.net/KdW0SvJ/edf-psychiatrtic-report-pdf

Coroner JR Submissions: https://www.docdroid.net/kZyWsgG/jr-coroner-submission-july-2015-pdf

David de Freitas's double life as a ‘financial adviser’ and tax cheat ends in £130K bankruptcy.

It turns out David de Freitas has been cheating HM Revenue and Customs out of £130,812 of taxes, dating back to 1998.

On the 4th of August 2022, Judge Passfield, sitting at the High Court, ordered Mr de Freitas to pay £130,812.26 in taxes and penalties by no later than the 4th November and saying:

'In the circumstances, it is very unlikely that the court will be prepared to grant any further adjournment at the next hearing of the Petition, which I will duly mark as final'.

Paragraph 7 of the judgement says: Since at least the 1998/99 tax year, David de Freitas has carried on business as a financial planner on a self-employed basis [despite 'cooking the books' for the last 23 years].

But how can this man be allowed to give financial planning advice to people, when he doesn't even pay his own taxes? In my opinion, this is further evidence that David de Freitas is a dishonest man, and wholly consistent with his ongoing misinformation campaign against me.

That judgement can be found here.

In the end, David de Freitas did not pay his tax bill, so today, at the High Court in London, he was  declared bankrupt. The official bankruptcy notice, which is a public document, can be found here.

(This is all publicly available information reported in real time).

HM Revenue and Customs

Harriet Wistrich and Julie Bindel: The feminists who mislead the public.

Eleanor de Freitas was a  liar. In 2013 she falsely accused me of rape. In 2012 she falsely accused her parents and landlords of abuse. Even her parents have admitted the latter in court documents.

Both the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions have made public statements confirming that it was correct to prosecute Ms de Freitas for perverting the course of justice. The DPP noted that her prosecution relied on no less than 10 pieces of evidence. This included witness statements as well as CCTV and text messages, including one from Eleanor herself saying that she had "huge fun" with me, sent at the exact time she was supposedly raped.

For the record, I was never charged with  rape. It was Eleanor who was charged with lying, not the other way around.

This month, some nine years after the allegations, an organisation called Centre for Women's Justice is using Ms de Freitas name to promote their cause, implying she was a victim. This organisation is run by Harriet Wistrich, a well-known feminist.

Last week Julie Bindel (Wistrich's partner) wrote an article which appeared in The Critic magazine stating: 

"We live in a rape culture where legions of men feel entitled to commit sex crimes, secure in the knowledge that they will very probably get away with it.". 

The final paragraph ends by saying the Eleanor de Freitas case is "one example" of this, thus implying  I'm guilty of rape. This is not only untrue, it is seriously defamatory.

Even if they don't believe me, then surely they can recognise that both the Attorney General and DPP looked at the case and concluded there was strong evidence that Eleanor had lied? Even the coroner said there were many things on Eleanor's mind before she died. In a psychiatric report, Eleanor complains extensively about her family, not me.

The real truth is that Wistrich and Bindel are seriously misleading the public, and they know it. But they are not alone. There are  other feminist organisations who follow their example.

Back in 2014, when this case hit the press, a huge number of women's groups jumped on the bandwagon, parading Eleanor's name as if she was a hero. I was alarmed because it implied I was a rapist, which is categorically untrue. I contacted the charities, offering to show them evidence that proved I was innocent.

Every one of these charities declined. They didn't want to know. They did not want to see the cctv, text messages or any other evidence. They were prepared to support Eleanor, unconditionally, without looking at the facts and continued to peddle false information.

When I read about the same charities making statements on other cases in the press,  I just can't take them seriously. Because I know how they operate. The charities in question are: 

Refuge, Justice For Women, Women Against Rape, Rape Crisis, Eaves, One in four, Nia, Liberty, Centre for Women Justice, Victim Support, Campaign to End Rape, End Violence against Women.

Below: Harriet Wistrich and Julie Bindel.

 

 

Corrupt officer Julian King resigns, found guilty of misconduct.

It was DI Julian King (and DC Phil Dial), from the Metropolitan Police Sapphire unit who investigated Ms de Freitas false rape claims back in 2013. Now DI King has resigned before any action could be taken against him with regards to:

- Withholding evidence form the CPS

- Leaking information about me to the press

- Refusing to watch CCTV or text message evidence

Although DI King resigned the police recorded the allegations made against him as "proven" - in other words DI Julian King has been found GUILTY of misconduct in relation to the above.

These officers (along with Eleanor) probably thought I wouldn't follow up on their misconduct. It's been seven years, but I am glad I didn't give up. People who break the law must face the consequences.

Metropolitan Police pay me £10,000 in compensation.

The Metropolitan Police have paid me £10,000 in general damages with regards to the very serious misconduct of Detective Inspector Julian King and Detective Constable Phil Dial in which they:

- Both refused to watch CCTV evidence I provided them with, and never looked at text messages that showed Eleanor de Freitas had made a false allegation of rape.

- Both knew that Eleanor de Freitas had a history of making false rape complaints, but let her get away with it again and again.

- Detective Inspector King also breached the data protection act releasing my confidential information  to the de Freitas family without my consent.

Last year, the Daily Mail briefly reported the Police Misconduct. Click here to see the article. The officers are still under investigation by the IPCC and are facing a misconduct hearing at some point in the future. The outcome of that investigation is not yet known and that procedure is separate from my case against the police.

As well as receiving compensation from the police, it is possible that the officers will face disciplinary action if they are found guilty.

Watch this space.

David de Freitas bankrupts me.

Six seeks weeks ago I lost my appeal (in the court of appeal) which meant I had to pay David de Freitas legal costs. The judge ordered me to pay an "interim payment" of £400,000 by the 19th December 2018, but I had run out of money.

Mr de Freitas legal bill is probably somewhere around £1.8m. I didn't make the payment of £400,000 so David de Freitas applied to have me bankrupted and that's what has happened. It's no secret, the bankruptcy is being advertised in the Gazette as with all bankrupts, so might as well put it here as part of the narrative.

I've moved out of my flat I lived in for 19 years and now living in a rental. That flat will be sold to pay off Mr de Freitas legal bill. It's all a bit sad, but it can't get any worse than this. There is nothing to lose at this stage.

Overcoming setbacks and making comebacks are what makes life interesting, so even though I should be depressed I am actually pretty upbeat and excited about the future. It only gets better from here.  Bring on 2019!